Currently: 87° | Complete forecast | Log in
Letter to the editor:
Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012 | 2 a.m.
President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are both borrow-and-spenders.
Neither has a plan to balance the budget. Both support the Patriot Act, the war without end, the war on drugs, and subsidies for coal and tobacco.
Banks, oil, drug and medical insurance companies have done great under Obama, just like they will if Romney gets elected. Other than social issues, how much difference is there between these two?
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Steve what is your point
Steve does this mean you will not vote
Steve did you miss the Debate
- Obama did not agree with Romney
- Romney did not agree with Obama
Obama wants trickle-down redistribution government
Romney wants personal freedom to pursue happiness
Obama wants to increase taxes by $1.0 trillion
Romney wants tax reform with a broader base
Obama says "We have made too much progress" on jobs because the 7.8% unemployment is the same as when he took office four years ago
Romney want to create a job growth environment
There are differences between the candidates, as the debate showed, but in one very important way, Steve Brown is correct. In the economic area, math tells us that over time, a substantial reduction in government spending in the 2 largest areas (defense and entitlements) and increased taxes on all Americans are required to get our budgets in balance and start to reduce the debt. Neither man has a plan that calls for all that.
Neither man has a serious economic plan.
Michael
In reply to Steve Brown; universally, I'm certainly not completely satisfied with either candidate. Both Barack Obama and George Romney have their situational strengths and weaknesses.
Other than a nominee's vice-presidential pick, I believe where our knowledge in voting for a presidential candidate fails, is that these same presidential contenders, outside of an incumbent, are not required to disclose who their top aides, advisors, and other important appointed posts shall be should that individual candidate be elected President of the United States. I believe disclosures, investigations, and public scrutiny prior to an election are just as important to take place for those being considered for top level presidential appointed cabinet / advisor positions. I would also like to see a short list of a candidate's Supreme Court nominees.
The moment George Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running-mate; I began to distance myself from any possibility of voting for him as President. Up to this point, the presidential disclosure of political nominees works. However, what really made my decision to vote against Romney concrete was his choice as campaign manager. He is Matt Rhoades; a research director for the 2004 Bush campaign. Having to only assume Mr. Rhoades would become a top level aide / advisor, and or appointed to a top level presidential post, I could NEVER vote for Romney.
When President Obama has stated that voting for Romney would be a return to the George W. Bush / Cheney years, you can bet he is absolutely right. All one really has to do is look at Romney's campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, to see clearly that this is the absolute truth.
BChap
"The moment Obama chose Biden -yes Joe Biden- as his running-mate; I began to distance myself from any possibility of voting for Obama as President."
Can anyone envision Joe Biden as President
The worst decision ever I mean ever
---
Michael
When you say "Neither man has a serious economic plan"
The key point that must be made is Obama has had four years of attempting putting a real budget out and has failed. Each year he has gotten ZERO votes in the Reid Senate. ZERO credibility
Time for change
Simple answer letter writer. About $250 Million. One candidate knows how and one doesn't. Do you know the difference between the two candidates now?
CarmineD
Future, about Romney wanting personal freedom to pursue happiness. Romney wants Big Brother to decide which consenting adults can get married to each other and what a pregnant woman can do with her own body. Romney and Obama support the Patriot Act, which vastly increased the power of the government to read your emails, monitor your phone calls, and check your bank records. They both support NDAA which gave the government the right to arrest and detain American citizens indefinately without a trial. They both support putting people in prison for smoking marijuana, and they both support the 2 BILLION dollar spy center the NSA is building in Utah.
55 says "Romney wants Big Brother to decide which consenting adults can get married to each other and what a pregnant woman can do with her own body..
-- Well as far as the marriage thing goes Bill Clinton sign the defense of marriage act. When running for president in 2008, Obama gave an emotional and religious defense of traditional marriage and has not moved to change the law. I would say that Romney is following what Democrats have put in place and have not attempted to change.
-- and as far as the abortion issue -- sure Romney is pro-life and Obama is pro-abortion including live-birth abortions. But Romney is following the Roe/Wade decision - no change. What is of concern is under Obamacare the government forcing the availability of FREE ABORTIONS for anyone, no parental consent for children 12 years old, and no restriction on live-birth abortions, violation of the beliefs of people of faith.
Mr. Brown I hope you don't vote because if you can't see the differences between the President and the Governor you are truly uninformed.
Future,
President Obama's plans going forward seem to revolve around raising taxes on people making more than $ 250,000 and nobody else and increased government spending. I don't think that will result in much of a dent in deficit spending or starting to pay down the debt.
Romney wants to cut taxes 20 % across the board, balance the cost of that by eliminating loopholes and deductions and by cutting programs he doesn't think are worthy. That plan sounds better to me than Obama's plan and for that reason, he will get my vote.
But here's the problem. Deductions and loopholes are popular and Congress won't cut them... powerful lobbyists and their employers will see to that. Congress 'makes' new programs to stay popular. They don't 'cut' programs to become unpopular... and again, powerful lobbyists and their employers will see that programs are not cut.
More tax cuts without the loss of deductions, loopholes and the elimination of programs IS the OLD R plan. It didn't work before and it won't work this time and we are now deeper in debt than ever before.
A high priority for Obama, when he came into office should have been to explain to Americans how the money involved in Congressional elections corrupts the people we elect and how the lobbying they face once in office corrupts them even more. He needed to push very hard for public financing of Congressional elections and lobbying reform.
If Romney is elected, he should do the same. If he doesn't, he'll be like most other R Presidents and deliver half a loaf.... tax cuts with no reduction in government spending. A couple more cycles like that will finish us off financially and economically due to the debt we now carry.
Michael
Michael says "But here's the problem. Deductions and loopholes are popular and Congress won't cut them... powerful lobbyists and....."
So Romney clearly stated in the debate that the simples way was to set a cap on itemized deduction. Romney would set the nominal amount so as to not impact the middle class and progressively reduce it for the higher income earners.
But as Romney repeatedly refuted Obama the tax REFORM would be revenue neutral. When all the rates are lowered by 20% then the tax avoidance are eliminated OR capped Mostly on the Rich to be revenue neutral
By use of a DEDUCTION CAP the specific deduction lobbyist lose the ability or need to fight
President Obama and Mitt Romney are have a totally different approach on how to solve the problems we are current facing. The differences are clear and distinct.
Future,
The ideas Romney put forth are not all bad, but the roadblock remains. Presidents are not dictators. Congress is the body that would have to cap deductions. Do you really think all those that benefit by deductions are not going to realize what a deduction cap would do? They will realize and they will lobby Congress to make sure legislation such as that NEVER sees the light of day.
None of the stuff that benefits interests with money and lobbyists is going to get changed until we reform how we elect people to Congress and make lobbying reform happen.
I never understand why Americans can't see that the money needed to get elected and stay in office is provided in large part by people and entities that are hugely favored by certain policies and legislation. Combine that with the fact that providing new benefits to people is popular and you know why nothing is ever cut.
Michael
Carmine,"simple answer letter writer. About $250 million.One candidate knows how and one dosen't.Do you know the difference between the two candidates now"?
One candidate knows how to hide his money in the Cayman Islands,the Bahamas,and Switzerland the other candidate dosen't choose to.One candidate shows all his previous years taxes and one candidate only wants to show 2 years of taxes and nothing more. Now we know the difference between both candidates.
Carmine: perhaps you meant Mitt, not George, Romney. George was a great businessman who turned American Motors (then with manufacturing plants in Milwaukee & Kenosha, WI) into a thriving company. He also became Governor of Michigan. Even though he failed in his presidential bid, he was a success at most things he attempted in his life. Mitt learned a lot of life lessons from his successful father and it shows in his temperment, style & grace under fire.
No, Mr. Pizzo. 5 Banks in the USA control over 60 percent of the money in the USA. When you have $250 Million that is a big problem. One bank goes belly up, there is a good likelihood, the other 4 will too. They all do the same thing. Governor Romney and his finacial advisors are protecting his wealth and ensuring it will be around for awhile. Why? If this country, through the failed leadership of our elected leaders, blow it. As they/ve shown they have a natural penchant to do.
CarmineD
"Carmine: perhaps you meant Mitt, not George, Romney."
Like father, like son. Chip off the block.
CarmineD
Carmine" No Mr.Pizzo"
When you are running for president all cards are on the table.Gov.Romney is hiding something by not disclosing his taxes for more than 2 years(2010,2011) that's the difference between both Pres.Obama and Gov.Romney,one does and one dosen't.
The letter writer is wrong. There's a great deal of difference between the two candidates just as there's a great deal of difference between the two parties...
For starters, the GOP is not interested in doing what is best for the ENTIRE country....
They say they are but that's just political propaganda.
The Republicans have never seen a rich guy that they dislike. Their base of support is from the "fat cats" and the "money changers," (Wall Street) and the Republicans believe that their job is to give every opportunity possible to those two groups.
The GOP still believes in the out dated theory called "trickle-down economics." Actually its been in place for the last 10 years with no real evidence that it has helped the economy at all...
In other words, the Bush tax cuts have NOT created jobs. They should be allowed to fade into the sunset come December.
The Democrats on the other hand, believe that the federal government can build a better economy by using tax dollars to re-build, re-train and re-energize the work force.
They believe that each & every American should get a "square deal" and its the role of the government to ensure that takes place......
The GOP will tell you that they're willing to help those that have fallen on hard times but their actions don't show that.
If the GOP had their way, there would be NO food stamps; NO unemployment compensation; NO student loans; NO Pell grants & NO government money spent on medical research.
Both Social Security and Medicare, as we know it, would be a thing of the past.
in short, the GOP would privatize most everything they could get their hands on and they would continue to give tax breaks to American corporations and America's rich "fat cats"
Contrary to what the letter writer says, there's many, many differences between Obama and Romney.
The Democrats & the Republicans are miles apart when it comes to agreeing on what's best for this country.
Anyone who doesn't realize that, hasn't been reading, watching and listening...
No, Mr. Pizzo. Some cards are kept close to vest, even for a president. What a presidential candidate does with his money is one of them. Your obcession with what Governor Romney does with his is the same old nonsense. It's Romney's money, not yours. If he wants to stuff it under his mattress and/or put it offshore that's his business not yours. Don't vote for him if it means that much to you.
CarmineD
Just for the record Mr. Pizzo, a certified and notarized statement with a summary of Governor Romney's paid incomes taxes for the last 20 years showed he paid more than 14 percent each of these years in Federal income taxes. The analyses was certified by one of the big 4 accounting firms. When they do so, their reputation is on the line.
Not like dirty harry who can say anything he wants, even lies, and get away with it. His reputation is not on the line. He sold his soul and integrity to the devil years ago.
CarmineD
Furthermore: "Between 1990 and 2009 Romney paid an average effective federal income tax rate of 20 percent of their adjusted gross income."
What's in your wallet, Mr. Pizzo?
CarmineD
Carmine,we were talking about the difference between both candidates,you have wandered off.One cansidate will disclose and one candidate won't disclose.That's the difference.Stay with the subject matter. It's my first amendment right to say what I feel,freedom of speech remember.
It depends on what you mean by disclosure. In my view, and many others, I don't need to see the individual tax returns for 20 years. A summary is fine. And Governor Romney, through his accountants, provided it.
What's in your wallet Mr. Pizzo?
CarmineD
Lest you forget, the ISSUE was, Mr. Pizzo, so poignantly expressed by dirty harry that Governor Romney paid NO INCOME TAXES for the last 10 years. Remember? That was what he was hiding according to dirty harry and those him you who believed it. That was a bold faced lie. The Governor paid no less than 14 percent and as much as 20 percent for years 1999-2009. That's good enough for me and others like me. Not good enough for you? Don't vote for Governor Romney. That's your choice.
What's in your wallet Mr. Pizzo?
CarmineD
BTW you have a right to freedom of speech. You don't have a right to everything you want under freedom of speech. Governor's PERSONAL money matters is one of those. NOYB.
What's in your wallet Mr. Pizzo?
CarmineD
Carmine,Stay on the subject matter not on what you think I should say or not say. We were talking about the difference between both candidates,Gov.Romney And Pres.Obama.
Show me the money!!
El_lobo I know you like to speak in talking points but it might interest you to know that Holland, one of the currently successful socialistic countries in Europe, has privatized almost ALL government services. Let me repeat that. ALMOST ALL!
The guy sweeping the street (they still do that there) is working for a small to medium size company. The guy repairing the paving stones on the sidewalk is working for a small or medium size company. The guy repairing one of the many small bridges is working for a small or medium size company. I think you can see a pattern here.
Actual government workforce is very small. All services are contracted out. The exception or course would be things like police and fire.
Those who continue to harp on tax returns (or the lack thereof) sound no different than those who continue to harp on college transcripts (or the lack thereof.)
If the various political spectrum graphing sites have any basis to them at all, the one thing thing they all seem to show is that there is very little difference between President Obama and Romney in broad terms. The most annoying factor about both is how deep they score on the authoritarian (statist, populist) axis.
Much of what is perceived as Obama's socialist bent is actually his authoritarianism coming through, and that is at the heart of why so many on the hard-left are unhappy with him.
Romney and Obama might differ on details, but overall, they share the same desire for government control.
John Thompson said....
"El_lobo I know you like to speak in talking points but it might interest you to know that Holland, one of the currently successful socialistic countries in Europe, has privatized almost ALL government services."
Mr Thompson, talking about the Dutch privatizing such things as street sweeping, repairing the roads, & repairing the bridges is hardly an example of privatizing ALL government services...
Actually, we, in some situations, do privatize road repairs (along with the building of roads...take I-215 for example...) and the building of bridges.
Who built the latest bridge over the Grand Canyon (near Hoover Dam? . Was that government workers or was that workers who worked for a privately owned company?
Yes, Holland is very socialistic and guess what? They have hundreds of socialistic type programs including a national health care program & a retirement program (much like our Social Security) for all of their citizens...
Sorry John John, but NO cigar!
No they DO NOT have a national health care program. Their basic system is that everyone buys health insurance from the many insurance providers. The difference is that if you are on "the dole" you still must buy health insurance. It is deducted from your stipend.
El_Lobo do you want more examples? I lived there for 7 years I know what I am talking about.
"Show me the money!!"
Mr. Pizzo:
Touche. BUT, just because you are a candidate for president, or the president, does not preempt your personal rights to privacy. And money matters are personal. Presidential candidates are only required, by long established tradition, to release the current year's tax return. And while in the presidency, to do so too. Governor Romney released his 2011 and 2010 returns and a certified summary of 20 previous years. It's praiseworthy for President Obama for releasing more than one year's tax return. But certainly not a reason, in my view, to vote for him over Romney for president. Not with his track record for the last 4 years. To me, his job performance for the last 4 years is more important than all his meaningless tax returns. And doesn't compensate for it.
You ask for Romney to show you the money. BUT you won't tell us what's in your wallet? Don't say you're not a presidential candidate. It's irrelevant to the matter. Noone should ask and or expect anyone to do what he/she won't/can't do either. [It's a corrolary to the Golden Rule]. And worst, judge the other person badly if he/she doesn't. There's a word for that behavior and it starts with an "h."
CarmineD
Carmine,We were talking about the difference between Pres.Obama and Gov. Romney,not another subject that you brought on board.If you would like to answer the orignal question on this,that would be great.
Actually the Netherlands does have a type of national health care system. Its a hybrid when compared with most European countries but the government is very much involved in the running of the system.
The following says that very thing.
"The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private obligatory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from earmarked taxation.
Private insurance companies must offer a core universal insurance package for the universal primary curative care, which includes the cost of all prescription medicines. They must do this at a fixed price for all. The same premium is paid whether young or old, healthy or sick. It is illegal in The Netherlands for insurers to refuse an application for health insurance or to impose special conditions (e.g., exclusions, deductibles, co-payments, or refuse to fund doctor-ordered treatments).
A key feature of the Dutch system is that premiums may not be related to health status or age. Risk variances between private health insurance companies due to the different risks presented by individual policy holders are compensated through risk equalization and a common risk pool. Funding for all short-term health care is 50% from employers, 45% from the insured person and 5% by the government. Children under 18 are covered for free. Those on low incomes receive compensation to help them pay their insurance. "
When push comes to shove, the government of the Netherlands uses both a type of government controlled and free market system too deliver health care to an over-whelming percentage of the population...One of the goals of the system is to provide health care to every citizen who desires it, regardless of cost!
That's why I referred to it as a national health care system....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_...
nutbars are saying the 7.8 % unemployment figures were rigged, even people writing for local newspapers. You can vote for none of these candidates...I will vote for the winner Barrack Obama.
John Thompson....
Yes, absolutely! Show me several more examples....
Privatizing street sweeping, road repair & bridge repair is hardly reason enough to declare that the Netherlands is privatizing ALL government services....
As I stated earlier, we privatize many, many things in this country such as building Interstate highway systems, bridge building; building parks & recreational facilities and schools...
We have a "mixed economy" and have had for a long, long time....
mred said:
"nutbars are saying the 7.8 % unemployment figures were rigged, even people writing for local newspapers."
No surprise there! The right-wingers will go to ANY extreme to win in November....
El_Lobo stating that we made a few bridges etc. is nothing like privatisation. The original comment was you demonizing the conservatives because they wanted to privatize EVERYTHING. A perfect example would be the "verblijsdocument" or the equivalent of a "green card". When I first moved there this was handled by the "foreign police". This was an extension of the regular police. About 2002 this was handled by a private company. What I am trying to say is that the only government employees are contract administrators.
Now, back to my original intent: privatization is not the DEMON that you seem to project. But obviously you may not be able to understand this basic premise.
I am by no means saying that we should be privatizing everything or anything. The original comment was about you spewing talking points without understanding what you are saying.
"Carmine, We were talking about the difference between Pres.Obama and Gov. Romney,"
Mr. Pizzo: The letter writer's topic is just the opposite: "Little difference between the candidates."
CarmineD
Carmine,"Mr.Pizzo the letter writer's topic is just the opposite:Little difference between the candidates".
On your Oct.6th.5:20am post your quote to the letter writer.
"Simple" answer letter writer.About 250 million.One candidate know's how and one dosen't.Do you know the difference between the two candidates now"?
It appears that you not only change the subject matter at times,but you also seem to flip flop.
What's in your Mind?
One big differance between the two. Obama's been a total failure. Mitt hasen't had the chance yet..
summerof69......
Do you really think you're fooling anybody here?
You can't change the facts.
Bush/cheney/republicans CRASHED OUR ECONOMY.
PRESIDENT OBAMA SAVED OUR ECONOMY, SAVED GM
AND CHRYSLER, GOT BIN LADEN, GOT NEW HEALTH CARE.
AND now has 7.8% unemployment.
And you call this a failure?
Willard Romney won't get that chance to drag us
back to those STUPID REPUBLICAN YEARS.
WE'RE NOT STUPID!
WE'RE KEEPING PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!
Mr. Pizzo:
It's the moderator's job, not yours, to determine what is and isn't on topic. Let the moderator do it. Yours is to respond and comment. If you can. Or not, if you can't, rather than to do the moderator's work.
If I were to answer your question honestly, albeit off-topic as it may be, you would be duly impressed I'm sure.
CarmineD
Carmine,Nice try.
Thank you Sam. I thought so too!
CarmineD
Teamster: You should really get a grip. 7 out of 10 vehicles GM makes are built outside the U.S. Obama saved the Canadian and Mexican auto industry. Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is alive and well. Add in those under employed, those who have given up, those on welfare, in prison, the unemployment rate rate is 23%. Google it. You are delusional. Seek psychiatric help !!
Carmine, No need to thank me you did it yourself.Your actions have been exposed (subject changing and flip floping) are your main ingredients.
Unlike you, I know and keep to my manners.
I've noted when you can't rebut with intelligence, you say I'm off topic. Usually in response to me, then I rebut and you can't/won't. Or you play my pet parrot Sam and repeat what I said to you to me. So you retort, customarily, I'm off topic. Yes, but so were you, first, and hence so was I.
CarmineD
Carmine,"unlike you ,I know and keep to my manners".
That is exactly the response I was expecting from you.It's you that when you don't want to answer a question you change the subject matter.Also at times you flip flop.I'm not the only commenter who has said that about you.It has appeared a few times in others posts.
Thanks for naming your mentor (pet parrot)Sam after me.
I can take anything you say about me including name calling and your insults.In closing keep them coming I can handle it.
Name calling and insults? Not from me Mr Pizzo. I prefer for your/others' posts to speak for themselves. You/they do a much better job in self-revelation than I can ever do.
CarmineD